What strikes me about this conversation with regards to power structures is that we are not stopping to consider whether democratic ideals themselves are simply a competing myth.

I am frankly not very impressed with democracy-- I am much more comfortable with monarchy. I don't believe that any fool without education should make decisions for the whole. I am much more comfortable with educated people, or in this case realized people, deciding for the community who best exemplifies the lineage.

Monarchy doesn't necessary mean good quality control either. For all its flaws, democracy still expects some accountability from its leaders. There is a quote about a king appointing the minister being the 'outer way' while the kingdom being offered by the people is the way of Dzogchen. It is primarily a reference to tantric accomplishments but the politics in that quote are certainly interesting.

By her unwillingness to reform China, in the end Ci Xi only paved the way for those more willing to adopt Western ideas and weapons to wreak havok and destroyed her own dynasty.

Sherlock wrote:Monarchy doesn't necessary mean good quality control either. For all its flaws, democracy still expects some accountability from its leaders.

Catherine II was swept into power by a bloodless coup led by nobles enraged with her husband's mismanagement of the country. Tyrants and morons in power are always dealt with by the people below them. Through a sense of justice, patriotism, or simply ambition. Furthermore, royals are raised to rule. This is a much better system than someone with too much ambition and not enough sense promising the moon to unions, lobbies and party leaders to be 'elected' and then spend the next few decades being shifted and appointed from one position of corruption and mediocrity to another.

Equanimity is the ground. Love is the moisture. Compassion is the seed. Bodhicitta is the result.

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

Konchog1 wrote:This is a much better system than someone with too much ambition and not enough sense promising the moon to unions, lobbies and party leaders to be 'elected' and then spend the next few decades being shifted and appointed from one position of corruption and mediocrity to another.

Anacyclosis. That's how democracy degenrates into ochlocracy; there is nothing wrong with democracy per se. In successful democracies, citizens at least have some guaranteed rights, such as free speech and not being jailed at the whim of the monarch. Also, how else did you think monarchy came to be? The royal families of Europe are all descended from Germanic barbarians who moved their tribes more and more towards militarism by promising them loot and comfort in the Roman Empire -- in Chinese history, the same goes for the Manchus, the Mongols, and the military generals who set up their own dynasties like the Tang and Ming.

Quite a few people (myself included) believe that one of the best forms of government is a constitutional monarchy. It's basically a democracy with the monarch acting as a safety brake. I'm an Australian if that makes any difference to anyone & we have that type of government with a governor general acting for & on behalf of the queen. Again it's a middle path.

Nice article about Anacyclosis.As degeneration of political system occurred during the second generation of the system (kings children etc.), Polybius' Sequence (1. Monarchy, 2. Kingship, 3. Tyranny, 4. Aristocracy, 5. Oligarchy, 6. Democracy, and 7. Ochlocracy) change can be applied deliberately after the end of each stage. This way we end up with monarchy->aristocracy-> democracy. King rules for lifetime or ex. 20 years, then after his death aristocracy takes over for (ex. 10) years, and finally democracy (ex. 5) years. To avoid chaos after democracy, King needs to be elected... democratically. Lets call it last choice of the mob. As the cycle is long, we avoid same people in next cycles, so people give all best they have instead of trying to look good. The only problem that I see, is to enforce this system into constitution and keep it there,as every stage holds desire to sustain itself. Just an idea.

shaunc wrote:Quite a few people (myself included) believe that one of the best forms of government is a constitutional monarchy. It's basically a democracy with the monarch acting as a safety brake. I'm an Australian if that makes any difference to anyone & we have that type of government with a governor general acting for & on behalf of the queen. Again it's a middle path.

Me too. Not the Australian bit.We have ours directly. I hope I live long enough to see King William .

Someone famous, I think Churchill, made a remark that democracy has many ills but it is the least evil alternative. I think that is probably true. I sometimes think Plato's ideal of disinterested philosophers-kings would be better but of course there is no way of ensuring that they won't be or become corrupted. So it is an unreal ideal. I think democracy is probably the least worst option. But that is why, among other things, education and vigorous internal debate and so on, are essential aspects to democracy.

Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas

I mean, what could be more logical and intellgent than a system of poltical rule based on birthright and sanction by God?

We are living in the 21st Century right?

And, no, I am not a supporter of bourgeoise (representative) democracy (oligarchy I would say) either. I mean most modern democratic states (especially the economically developed ones) actually function under a form of corporatism anyway.

When I think "democracy" I envisage direct democracy. In the words of the Ancient Hellenic historian and philosopher Herodotus:

I'd like to go back to the OP a bit. The question was raised as to what the term democracy really means in practice. Here in the States, we have a highly participatory culture (everyone has an opinion on matters of public concern and nearly everyone will let you know his or her perspective, often at length), coupled with a political system that is often at odds with the needs and stated intentions of the people that system is to represent. (Congress' current approval rating is around 20% right now. This is not accidental.)

To me this is a contradiction. The representative form of democracy is highly undemocratic, particularly at the points where administrative and procedural decisions are made (think of the gerrymandering of congressional districts, analogous to "rotten boroughs" in Victorian England).

What does this mean? What to do about a democracy that is not democratic?

In the US, a monarchy is not now nor will it ever be the answer. It is a nonstarter. I am not trying to criticize those states in which the monarchical form is accepted and is working--Denmark's queen seems like an interesting soul, after all, and if the Sultan of Brunei is reading this, I say Hi friend please send cash--merely that it is not really an alternative here. Is there an alternative? What would that alternative look like?

Here in the States, we have a highly participatory culture (everyone has an opinion on matters of public concern and nearly everyone will let you know his or her perspective, often at length)

And what shapes those perspectives? Full democracy will be ruled by manipulation... who knows what is better? Rulers not obeying the will of the mob, or some force from behind the curtains?Are our views truly ours? I don't think so.

Simon E. wrote:Maybe. I think the forces that shape the UK have nothing to do with the monarchy. Its what goes on the Square Mile of the city of London that do that.Not what happens in Buckingham Palace.

As an outsider looking in at the UK, I should say this is the case.

oushi wrote:

Here in the States, we have a highly participatory culture (everyone has an opinion on matters of public concern and nearly everyone will let you know his or her perspective, often at length)

And what shapes those perspectives? Full democracy will be ruled by manipulation... who knows what is better? Rulers not obeying the will of the mob, or some force from behind the curtains?Are our views truly ours? I don't think so.

Indeed. It is an unpopular view, but I do think the Situationists and, in some respects, the Frankfurt School are still relevant on this very point.

which means that if there is to be a monarchy in the US, we should eagerly anticipate the coronation of Queen Kim of Kardashian. At which time I will petition the Crown to call in the Royal navy to take back the Oregon Territory. In terms of brand preference, the House of Windsor is more appealing than the House of Botox.*

*I hope our readers at the NSA understand this comment to be satirical in nature or "snark o' the internet" and NOT intended as an act of sedition. Thanks!